The Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court turned down an appeal from Wang Zhendong, who was convicted of fraud and sentenced to death last February, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Wang, chairman of Yingkou Donghua Trading Group Co., had promised returns of up to 60 percent for investors who purchased ant-breeding kits from two companies he ran.

The insects were to be used in traditional medicinal wines, herbal remedies and aphrodisiacs.

Authorities, concerned about social unrest, have come down hard on fake investments and pyramid schemes, although Wang's sentence was harsh even by Chinese standards.

Communist leaders have sought to make examples out of businessmen and officials accused of fraud and corruption, and last year executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash.

Wang attracted more than 10,000 investors between 2002 and June 2005, when investigators shut down his companies. The closure of his business set off a panic among small-time players who saw their life savings disappear overnight.

Investigators put the size of the fraud at $416 million. Only $1.28 million was recovered. Fifteen managers of the company were also fined and sentenced to prison terms ranging from five to 10 years.

The Connecticut Appeals Court has ruled a 1995 pact struck by two widowed sisters to split each other’s future gambling winnings is still binding despite the fact they no longer speak to one another.

The decision paves the way for a public family feud pitting Theresa Sokaitis, 81, against Rose Bakaysa, 85, over a $500,000 Powerball jackpot Bakaysa hit on June 18, 2005, but doesn’t want to share with her estranged sibling.

Sokaitis is suing Bakaysa for breach of contract. Bakaysa’s attorney, William Sweeney Jr., told the Herald in November Sokaitis is a “gold digger.”

“We’re going to go to trial court and battle it out,” Sokaitis’ Boston attorney, Sean Higgins, said. She was, he said, “extremely excited by the court’s decision. She’s obviously elated for the chance to prove that she is entitled to her share of the money.”

Unlike Massachusetts, a bygone Connecticut law still frowns upon private wagering contracts. However, two appellate judges, in overruling Connecticut Superior Court Judge Patty Pittman’s 2006 summary judgment awarding the money to Bakaysa, found the notarized agreement between the sisters was not induced by the guarantee of hard cash, “but rather their mutual promises to one another to share in any winnings they received.”

Though Connecticut now widely embraces many forms of gambling, Appeals Court Judge William Lavery cast the lone dissenting vote against Sokaitis, stating in written remarks that “money” was the motivation behind the deal. “We must assume that it was the intent of the Legislature to continue to prohibit wagering contracts like the one at issue in this case,” he said.

The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was displeased by the court's three-judge ruling in July and had urged all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review it. The administration said the decision jeopardized national security.

The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court challenge to their status as "enemy combatants," judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses.

After criminal trials, appeals courts are limited in what evidence they can review. But hearings at Guantanamo Bay are not trials. Detainees are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides what evidence to present. And unlike in criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent.

"For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.

If the military reviewers designate a prisoner an enemy combatant, the prisoner can challenge that decision before the appeals court in Washington. The court was divided 5-5 on whether to reconsider its earlier decision. A majority of judges must vote to reconsider a ruling as a full court.

The Supreme Court is watching the case as it considers a landmark case challenging whether the military tribunal system is unconstitutional. With the high court waiting, it would not be in the public's interest to reconsider the case and risk delaying a Supreme Court decision, Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph issued a stern retort.

"We think that it is more important to decide the case correctly," Randolph wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges, "and that a correct decision would be of more assistance to the High Court."

It is unusual for judges to issue written opinions when denying such requests. The decision to issue a multiple written opinions underscores both how important and contentious the issue is.

"We are disappointed with today's decision," Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said. "All of the judges recognized the importance of the case and the court was evenly divided. We are reviewing the decision and considering all of our options."

The Supreme Court's stay of execution followed its decision in September to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the cocktail of chemicals used in lethal injections. The court began hearing arguments on this on January 7.

Local courts and state governments across the United States have put executions on hold while they await the Supreme Court decision, which is expected before the end of its term in July.

The review centers on the three-stage cocktail of drugs used in the injections -- the first chemical puts the prisoner to sleep, the second paralyzes the muscles and the third stops the heart.

If all goes to plan, the inmate quickly falls unconscious and dies within minutes. But if the first chemical is not administered properly, the two others become extremely painful, as shown by several botched executions.

Lawyers arguing against lethal injection say it violates the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which outlaws "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In December, New Jersey became the first US state in 40 years to abolish the death penalty. But opinion polls suggest that two-thirds of Americans continue to favor capital punishment, and more than 3,200 inmates remain on death row across the country.